Hostname: page-component-76dd75c94c-qmf6w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T07:48:21.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ARMY, INDUSTRY, AND LABOR IN GERMANY, 1914–1918. By Gerald D. Feldman. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 1966. Pp. xvi, 572. $12.50.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Carl Landauer
Carl Landauer
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Central European History , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 1970 , pp. 288 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The text of both petitions can be found in Grumbach, S., Das annexionistische Deutschland (Lausanne, 1917), pp. 123ff., 429ff.Google Scholar

2. Hart, B. H. Liddell, A History of the World War 1914–1918 (Boston, 1935), p. 208.Google Scholar

3. Stampfer, Friedrich, Die vierzehn Jahre (Karlsbad, 1936), p. 35.Google Scholar

4. The two untranslatable terms were coined by Max Weber in “Politics as a Vocation”; for the context see Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright, eds., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York, 1958), p. 120. The Gesinnungsethiker is a moral absolutist, who cannot be persuaded to use impure means even to avert disaster; the archetype is the absolute pacifist who will not touch a weapon under any circumstances.The Verantwortungsethiker feels responsible for the effects of his acts or omissions, and justified in using even morally questionable or dangerous means if necessary to stave off calamities. Weber explains that a clear-cut option for either kind of ethic is impossible. The distinction has not attracted as much attention in American social science literature as its importance warrants.Google Scholar